While the vast majority of the reviews for The Avengers have been positive, longtime movie critic A.O. Scott dared to take the road less traveled in an unflattering article that was published yesterday. Now, some actors might have simply ignored the lone dissenter amid the nearly universal acclaim, but not Samuel L. Jackson. No SIR.

According to Jackson, enough is enough. He has HAD it with this motherf***ing reviewer in the motherf***ing New York Times.

The secret of The Avengers is that it is a snappy little dialogue comedy dressed up as something else, that something else being a giant A.T.M. for Marvel and its new studio overlords, the Walt Disney Company. (...) Avengers is hardly worth raging about, its failures are significant and dispiriting. The light, amusing bits cannot overcome the grinding, hectic emptiness, the bloated cynicism that is less a shortcoming of this particular film than a feature of the genre.

Grinding, hectic emptiness. Damn, I could finger-lick my way through a thesaurus all day long and never come up with that sort of description. It's almost poetic in its dislike, wouldn't you say?

At any rate, call me crazy, but I don't think that's the part Samuel L. objected to. I'm guessing it was this line:

Mr. Jackson, with an eye patch and his well-practiced bellow, is more master of ceremonies than mission commander.

SAY WHAT AGAIN!

As for Jackson, he wasted no time in voicing his displeasure in a badass manner that befits a man of his reputation. That's right, he whined on Twitter:

Ah, Twitter. The modern vehicle for striking down, hashtags and all, with great vengeance and furious anger.

Obviously, it's a free country for Jackson to respond to his film's criticism however he likes, but snarkily calling for Scott's job sure seems over the line. Reviews are hardly objective, after all—they're simply published opinions for us to listen to or totally disregard. By responding this way, Jackson not only sounds like an entitled jerk who can't deal with a single opposing viewpoint on his multi-million blockbuster, it's HIS ego that comes off as big and rough-edged.

Meanwhile, I'm guessing all the extra viewership on Scott's review means his job is just fine, which is good news for those of us who actually enjoy balanced criticism. I may not agree with his take on the film, but I appreciate that it's out there. After all, if every review was an ass-licking ode to its stars, how would I have known to avoid, say, Jackson's craptacular performance in Twisted, which earned a truly impressive 2 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes?

What do you think of Samuel Jackson's Twitter outburst? Silly, or did TheNew York Times reviewer deserve it?